Auckland Development Committee - September Agenda 2014

8/11/2019 Auckland Development Committee - September Agenda 2014

1/159

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be heldon:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 11 September 2014 9.30am Reception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Deputy Chairperson Cr Chris Darby

Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax Mayor Len Brown, JP Member Josie Smith Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Ross Clow Cr Wayne Walker Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr John Watson Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Penny Webster Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeMember Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam WhiteDemocracy Advisor

5 September 2014

Contact Telephone: 09 307 7253Email : [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/159

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration ofeconomic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It willguide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with theseactivities. Key responsibilities include:

Unitary Plan

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

Tamaki regeneration projects

Built Heritage

Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (seeGoverning Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committees responsibility is explicitl y limited to making a recommendationonly

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


3/159

Auckland Development Committee 11 September 2014

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declaration of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of Minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

5.1 University of Auckland - Vice-Chancellor Professor StuartMcCutcheon 5

5.2 Trevor Hipkins - AECOM Company 5

6 Local Board Input 6

7 Extraordinary Business 6

8 Notices of Motion 6

9 Housing Strategic Action Plan - Stage 1 - Update and Next Stage 7

10 Industrial Business Land - Recommendations from the 1 July 2014Economic Development Committee meeting 27

11 Downtown Framework 37

12 Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation 39

13 City Centre Integration Monthly update 107

14 Northwestern Busway investigation update 119

15 Proposed Private Plan Change 372 and 373 to the Auckland CouncilDistrict Plan (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) 127

Due to the size and complexity of the full plan changes, a copy is available on request.

16 Review of the Area Planning Programme 137

17 2016 Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review ofRepresentation Arrangements 143

18 Plan Change 20 Flat Bush - Stage 2 to the Auckland Council District Plan(Manukau Section) to be made Operative 153

Due to the size and complexity of the full plan change, a copy can be viewd on the

Auckland Councils website. 19 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED20 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 159

C1 Land Acquisition, Crown Lynn Precinct, Clinker Place and Thom StreetSpecial Housing Area 159


4/159


5/159


Page 5

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr CE Brewer and Cr CM Casey have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision makingwhen a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other externalinterest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 14 August 2014,including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion todecline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 University of Auckland - Vice-Chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon

Purpose1. Vice-Chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon will discuss what the University of

Auckland is doing to support the development of Auckland and how the Council canpartner with the University to help it achieve even more.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:a) receive the University of Aucklands presentation and t hank the Vice-Chancellor

Professor Stuart McCutheon for his attendance.

5.2 Trevor Hipkins - AECOM Company

Purpose1. Mr Trevor Hipkins, AECOM will present their Sentiment (building confidence) survey

results for the Committees information.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:a) receive the presentation and thank Mr Trevor Hipkins for his attendance.


6/159


7/159

I t e m

9


Housing Strategic Action Plan - Stage 1 - Update and Next Stage Page 7

Housing Strategic Action Plan - Stage 1 - Update and Next Stage

File No.: CP2014/19982

Purpose1. To outline and have endorsed the focus of future work to be undertaken under the Housing

Action Plan.

Executive summary2. A report was presented to the Auckland Development Committee on 11 March 2014. This

report outlined progress being made on the 32 actions in the Housing Action Plan, andidentified that there had been a number of developments relating to housing which impactedupon any proposed Stage 2 work.

3. The recommendation (resolution number AUC/2014/49) from the 11 March meeting was to:

a) endorse the future priorities set down in the report in respect of Stage 1.

b) review Stage 2 of the Housing Action Plan in light of progress on Stage 1 and thedevelopment of the Auckland Housing Accord including the establishment of the HPO,and a further report on whether to proceed with additional work be submitted to the

Auckland Development Committee by June 2014.

c) circulate this report to all local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board(IMSB) and the Heritage Advisory Panel for their information.

4. There are a number of Stage 1 actions that have a high degree of importance. Many ofthese actions have been completed and have also resulted in further recommendations oractions. These include:

1 (increase ability of ACPL to work / partner with others)

11 (investigate unregulated investment)

14 (development contributions deferrals)

16 (land value capture)

17 (inclusionary zoning in PAUP)

19 (end to end consenting)

20 (one deposit consents)21 (building consent pre-approvals)

24 (landlord WOF scheme)

25 (social return on investment)

26 (Homestar rating)

5. There are also a number of partially completed Stage 1 actions that need to be finalised.Staff consider that effort should be put into completing and implementing these actions fromStage 1 of the Housing Action Plan rather than initiating the original Stage 2 of the workprogramme. Stage 2 work has now been superseded by other events including the AucklandHousing Accord.

6. It is therefore recommended that actions to be taken forward and the focus of future workare the activities outlined within Attachment 1 to this report.

7. The budget for this work is estimated to be in line with the Housing Action Plan work to date($120K per annum) and will be managed by existing resources within the Housing ProjectOffice with assistance from other areas of council on relevant actions.


8/159

Item 9



Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the completion of Stage 1 of the Housing Action Plan and agree not toproceed with the original Stage 2 Housing Action Plan, as this has been supersededby agreements and actions being undertaken under the Auckland Housing Accord.

b) circulate this report to all local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board(IMSB) for their information.

Background8. Directive 11.1 of the Auckland Plan states that Auckland Council will Develop and deliver on

a multi-sector Housing Strategic Action Plan to achieve the required increase in housingsupply, including options to increase affordable housing for first home buyers.

9. The purpose of the Housing Strategic Action Plan was to have a multi-sector commitment toimprove the delivery of quality of affordable housing. Given the scale and complexity ofhousing issues, it was agreed that the HSAP be carried out in two stages:

i. Stage 1 focused on Directive 11.5 of the Auckland Plan, which committed Council toworking with others to urgently investigate and use the whole range of possiblehousing development vehicles, policy and regulatory tools, that would increase thesupply of affordable housing in Auckland

ii. The Housing Action Plan adopted by Council in December 2012 is the outcome ofStage 1. The Housing Action Plan (Stage 1) has 12 priority areas and 32 actions andwas developed with input from a range of parties in the housing and developmentsector, iwi housing authorities and included participation by central governmentcolleagues.

iii. Originally Stage 2 was to focus on other critical housing issues, and the contribution of

other sectors, in which Council can act as facilitator and catalyst to bring partiestogether. Stage 2 was deferred to allow progress to be made against Stage 1 of theHousing Action Plan.

10. Following the adoption of the Housing Action Plan there have been a number ofdevelopments in the housing area. The council entered into a Housing Accord with centralgovernment, the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHA) waspromulgated and the Housing Project Office was established. Consequently, staff considerthat effort should be put into completing and implementing Stage 1 of the Housing ActionPlan rather than initiating the original Stage 2 of the work programme.

11. The March report provided an update and outlined that:

Of the 12 Priority Areas within the Housing Action Plan which were translated into 11workstreams and 32 actions (and an additional 4 sub-actions). The status of theseactions were as follows:

Six have been completed Actions 4, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 22Twenty four are substantially underway these being Actions 1, 2, 3 4a, 4b, 4c, 5,6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30Five have been commenced - these being Actions 7, 8, 18, 31 and 32

12. A summary of the status of the Stage 1 actions, and those actions to be taken forward andthe focus of the future work, is identified within Attachment 1.


9/159

I t e m

9



Discussion13. A further review has been undertaken on the scope of the Housing Action Plan moving

forward.

14. The Auckland Housing Accord and recent HASHA legislation has set the direction for furtherinitiatives to improve housing affordability in Auckland. The outcome has meant that theHousing Project Office (HPO) was established to facilitate the identification of SpecialHousing Areas (SHAs), and to fast track the implementation of approvals and consenting forqualifying developments. The HPO is also the portal for housing strategy and policy,including the Housing Action Plan.

15. Work on the Accord is aligned to a number of areas of the Housing Action Plan. Forexample, priority area 7 on regulatory processes covers innovation. This area of work will beexpanded in practice as the HPO is delivering in a new regulatory environment. The HPOtakes a whole of council approach, with dedicated staff from councils CCOs, AucklandTransport and Watercare Services Limited and council asset managers e.g. stormwater.Emphasis is on having one council wide portal through the HPO for qualifying developmentconsents and SHA approvals and plan variations. Co-ordination of infrastructure delivery (at

the same time; in the same place) is a key component of the one -stop shop HPO portaland a key criteria in the identification of special housing areas. A number of regulatoryinnovations are underway e.g. the HPO consenting team has worked with the NZ GreenBuilding Council to streamline the registration, assessment and audit of homes within SHAsto achieve the Homestar rating in the PAUP significantly reducing associated costs and time;working with the councils building control team it has also initiated a pilot option for planningself-certification for building consents checks subject to certain criteria to provide greaterchoice to an applicant; similarly it has introduced a new role of a project lead planner thatassumes all the roles of key relationship manager; project manager and is also the seniorconsent assessor to enhance the one stop shop concept and delivery of QD consents.

16. Council is also working closely with a number of groups on housing related issues. The

Government and Council are working together through working groups such as the JointOfficials Housing Working Group. Equally Council is working closely with the private sectorand third party housing suppliers to identify and resolve issues impacting on housing supplyand affordability.

17. Effectively the originally envisioned Stage 2 of the Housing Action Plan is already occurringvia other mechanisms, and therefore Stage 2 has been redefined.

Conclusion18. That the focus of the Housing Action Plan moving forward be on delivering on the actions

within Stage 1 and the associated sub-actions as detailed within this report.

19. That there be six monthly reporting against the actions to the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee.

Consideration

Maori impact statement20. In undertaking the workstreams and actions within the Housing Action Plan the HPO has

been working with Te Waka Angamua (TWA), the Independent Maori StatutoryBoard(IMSB), iwi, mana whenua, Urban Maori Trusts, mataawaaka organisations, centralgovernment and others to identify opportunities for papakainga and other types of housingand social infrastructure for Maori. This is consistent with affording a priority to thetransformational shifts in the Auckland Plan; including significantly lifting Maori social andeconomic well-being.


10/159

Item 9



Local Board Views21. The Local Board Chairs and members views have been sought during the drafting of the

Housing Action Plan Stage one via workshops. Individual boards have been engagedfurther where specific actions affect a local board area e.g. when sites were selected for thePlace Management Study; and also through the identification of Special Housing Areas.

Consultation22. As this project is about implementing the Auckland Plan, no specific public consultation is

planned. There was engagement with relevant external agencies, iwi, mana whenuamataawaka, business, property and community stakeholders in the preparation of theHousing Action Plan. The public is also consulted on specific regulatory policy mechanismsthrough the Unitary Plan process, including the March 2013 Addendum to the Draft UnitaryPlan that included the option for inclusionary zoning (Action 17 in the Housing Action Plan)and Land Value Capture (Action 16).

Financial and Resourcing Implications23. Completion of the Housing Action Plan will be delivered within existing staff resources and

approved budgets. Any proposals that stem from the action plan e.g. a potential for an Auckland Housing Bond (currently being investigated) will be reported to the committee withany associated financial implications. It is also noted that the Ministry of Business,Innovation & Employment (MBIE) are co-funding the cost of servicing residentialdevelopment and demand on infrastructure study.

Legal and Legislative Implications24. There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report. However, the Housing

Action Plan supports Councils requirement to address cultural, economic, environmentaland social well-being across Council activities as required by the Local Government Act2002; and ensure that activities improve the well-being of communities as directed in theLocal Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Implementation Issues25. The Housing Action Plan is an action identified in the Auckland Plan and this report is to

confirm its scope allows progress to be made.

AttachmentsNo. Title Page

A Summary of Actions Progress 11

Signatories Authors Rohan Bush - Strategic Housing Analyst

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing Authorisers Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


11/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




12/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




13/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




14/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




15/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




16/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




17/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




18/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




19/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




20/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




21/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




22/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




23/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




24/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




25/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




26/159

AttachmentA

Item 9




27/159

I t e m

1 0


Industrial Business Land - Recommendations from the 1 July 2014 Economic DevelopmentCommittee meeting

Page 27

Industrial Business Land - Recommendations from the 1 July 2014Economic Development Committee meeting

File No.: CP2014/19981

Purpose1. To present the recommendations relating to industrial business land of the 1 July 2014

Economic Development Committee meeting to the Auckland Development Committee.

Executive summary2. At its 1 July 2014 meeting the Economic Development Committee resolved:

Resolution number ECO/2014/1

MOVED by Deputy Chairperson RI Clow, seconded by Cr D Quax:

That the Economic Development Committee:

a) recommend to the Auckland Development Committee that:i. business land is a critical consideration of the Spatial Priorities work that is

currently being advanced.ii. new areas of business land growth are prioritised in any future Land Release

Programme outlined by Auckland Council.3. The original report to the 1 July 2014 meeting of the Economic Development Committee is

appended as Attachment A.


a) agree that business land is a critical consideration of the Spatial Priorities work that iscurrently being advanced.

b) agree that new areas of business land growth are prioritised in any future LandRelease Programme outlined by Auckland Council.


A Original report to 1 July 2014 Economic Development Committee -Industrial Business Land

29

Signatories Authors Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor Authorisers Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


28/159


29/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 0



Page 29


30/159

AttachmentA

Item 1

0



Page 30


31/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 0



Page 31


32/159

AttachmentA

Item 1

0



Page 32


33/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 0



Page 33


34/159

AttachmentA

Item 1

0



Page 34


35/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 0



Page 35


36/159


37/159

I t e m

1 1


Downtown Framework Page 37

Downtown Framework

File No.: CP2014/20135

Purpose1. To present the Downtown Framework document to the Auckland Development Committee

for endorsement.

Executive summary2. The Downtown Framework is an informing document to guide discussions and decision

making on current and emerging matters in the development of Downtown and the harbouredge as a key component in delivering The Auckland Plans vision to create the worlds mostliveable city.

3. This Downtown Framework will be the first of several such documents covering specificparts of the city centre. It brings together the visions and programmes from across all of

Auckland Council and the Council Controlled Organisations

4. The Framework document has been co-ordinated by the City Centre Integration team. It is anon-statutory, living document that will continue to evolve over time responding to newopportunities to fulfil the potential of Downtown.


a) endorse the Downtown Framework document.

Comments5. This Downtown Framework will be the first of several documents covering specific parts of

the city centre. It brings together the visions and programmes from across all of AucklandCouncil and the Council-controlled Organisations.

6. The Auckland Plans vision to create the worlds most liveable city is supported by thestrategies and place-based plans that set out how to deliver it, as well as the Unitary Plan,which sets out the planning rules that are needed to shape what gets built and where.

7. The framework has been guided by the City Centre Masterplan, Waterfront Plan, RegionalLand Transport Plan, Economic Development Strategy and Auckland Unitary Plan. Thereare also specific supporting studies, such as the City East West Transport Study (CEWTStudy).

8. The Framework outlines the different projects proposed for the downtown area. Many ofthese complex and are at different stages of development. It does not seek to answer all thechallenges that lie ahead, instead it aims to guide discussions and decision making on thoseissues. It does this by:

i. Setting out the principles and organising ideas to help guide project delivery and futureinvestment and development decisions.

ii. Combining the latest information, and demonstrating the best available understandingof how the projects will work together to deliver a world class downtown, and highlightskey challenges and inter-dependencies to realising the vision.

9. Project information will continue to evolve over time as option testing is undertaken, furtherinvestigations progressed and new projects are considered. This will create new challengesand opportunities to debate.


38/159

Item 1

1


Downtown Framework Page 38

Consideration

Local board views and implications10. The Waitemat Local Board has been kept info rmed during the development of the

downtown framework, including attendance at elected member workshops. The draftWaitemat Local Board vision includes the following wording: Waitemat, the innovativeeconomic hub of Auckland: The city centre, waterfront and city fringe form the innovativeeconomic hub of Auckland, where people want to live, work, study, play and visit.

Mori impact statement 11. The importance of local Iwi and Mana whenua within the framework document has been

recognised as an important component in the development of the downtown area andwaterfront.

12. Mana whenua have a strong historical connection with the city centres harbour edge thatcontinues to the present day, yet there are few visible links to connect to this rich heritage.

Implementation13. The Downtown Framework is being co-ordinated by the City Centre Integration team. It is

non-statutory, living document that will continue to evolve over time responding to newopportunities to fulfil the potential of Downtown.

AttachmentsThe Downtown Framework document will be tabled at the meeting.

Signatories Authors Rick Walden General Manager City Centre Integration Authorisers Rick Walden General Manager City Centre Integration

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


39/159

I t e m

1 2


Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation Page 39

Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation

File No.: CP2014/19301

Purpose1. To present the findings of two independent public space evaluation studies as well as other

considerations to satisfy resolutions passed by the Auckland Development Committee at itsmeeting on the 15 May 2014 in relation to the report Downtown Shopping Centre BlockRedevelopment Future of Queen Elizabeth Square (Resolution number AUC/2014/64).Based on the findings of the studies, this report seeks approval to commence the statutoryprocesses associated with the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square and the consequential workrequired to deliver new alternative public space/s and secure desired design outcomes fromthe redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block.

Executive summary2. The Auckland Development Committee at its meeting on 15 May 2014 considered the report

Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) Block Redevelopment Future of Queen ElizabethSquare (Resolution number AUC/2014/64) and resolved to approve, in principle, thedisposal of the land on which Queen Elizabeth Square (QE Square) stands as part of thewider redevelopment of the DSC block. This approval was subject to the outcome ofassociated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land). It was madeon the basis that the redevelopment of the block is of the highest world class design qualityand the proceeds from the sale of QE Square are reinvested in new or enhanced downtownpublic space/s. The latter point was to be further considered through an evaluation study ofoff site public space options and presented back to the Auckland Development Committeefor final approval.

3. QE Square as defined for the purpose of this report is contained by Lower Queen Street to

the east, HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) to the north, Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) tothe west and Zurich House (21 Queen Street) to the south. It measures approximately 2000square metres (sq m) in size. The DSC block in which QE Square sits is bounded by Lower

Albert Street, Quay Street, Custom Street West and Lower Queen Street. With theexception of QE Square all of the land in the block in owned by Precinct Properties NewZealand Limited (PPNZL).

4. In June 2014 Council commissioned Reset Urban Design Limited to undertake anindependent evaluation of existing public space provision in the downtown area including QESquare and evaluate options for future offsite public space/s. This evaluation study, referredto as the Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation (DPSOE), finds that the existing aswell as a potentially enhanced QE Square is fundamentally compromised as a public spacenot least because of the shading effect of HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street). It concludes thatthere are better alternative spaces which, with the proceeds of its sale, could be created orimproved to enhance the overall downtown public space provision (see Attachment A -Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation)

5. The study recommends the following options would provide improved civic and informalrecreational spaces in the downtown area:

an upgraded pedestrianised civic space on Lower Queen Street, in front of the ChiefPost Office (CPO) heritage building, to be delivered as part of the City Rail Link (CRL)early works package to a standard that is coherent with the wider area and/or recentpublic realm upgrades in the area as per the City Rail Link Notice of Requirementconditions.

a suite of three new or upgraded downtown waterfront public spaces that will provide forinformal recreational uses as well as ceremonial welcoming activity. These spacesstretch between the foot of Lower Albert Street in the west through to the AdmiraltySteps area to the east of Queens Wharf.


40/159

Item 1

2



6. Preparation of the study included sessions with the Waitemata Local Board, joint workshopsof the Auckland Development Committee and Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee (30July and 3 September 2014), a series of meetings with five iwi groups, Waterfront

Aucklands Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and various meetings with staff representingvarious parts of council and Council Controlled Organisations.

7. Independent of the above work, the Copenhagen based leading international practice inpublic life studies and public realm design, Gehl Architects, undertook a review of QESquare. Their evaluation found that HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) compromises the QESquare space from an environmental perspective and restricts visual connectivity to thewaterfront whilst Lower Queen Street bus and rail underpass infrastructure blocks the spacefrom the street (see Attachment B Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation). They concludethat if other open space options exist within the area it would be worthwhile exploring howthey could offer something that is more valuable and attractive than the current QE Square.

8. A review of identifie d public space options against Te Aranga Mori design principles,including consultation with five mana whenua groups, determined that the downtownwaterfront options, specifically the Admiralty Steps area, present much greater opportunities

to achieve the cultural landscape qualities sought than the existing QE Square.9. The City Centre Integration group led Downtown Framework document, the topic of a separate

report to this meeting of the Auckland Development Committee (Ref CP2014/20135), providesthe strategic context and overarching vision to these evaluation studies and therecommendations of this report. The Framework and evaluation studies suggest that theincorporation of QE Square in the wider redevelopment of the DSC block would enable thefollowing outcomes:

a. The creation of at least two new or enhanced waterfront recreational public spaces,superior in form and function to QE Square, utilising the return from the sale of theland.

b. A greater level of control, via specific requirements within the terms of sale, over thedesign of the DSC block in support of achieving a world class gateway developmentand city centre destination. A key requirement will be an enhanced pedestrian east-west laneway that functions as an attractive, publically accessible route betweenpublic transport nodes as part of the wider City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) identifiedcircuit.

c. A new active edge to a new civic space on Lower Queen Street in front of the CPObuilding, commensurate in size but better quality to QE Square, made possible by theeast-west laneway and the consequent shift of Lower Queen Street bus stops andinfrastructure to Lower Albert Street.

10. On the basis of these outcomes this report seeks to reconfirm the 15 May 2014 Auckland

Development Committee approval to dispose of QE Square subject to outcome ofassociated statutory public processes. It proposes that the proceeds from the sale of QESquare be reinvested in at least two new or enhanced public spaces in the downtownwaterfront area as part of a network of public spaces connected via an upgraded QuayStreet to a new civic space in Lower Queen Street.


41/159

I t e m

1 2



Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:a) note the findings of the Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation (Reset Urban

Design), Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation (Gehl Architects) and Te Aranga Mori

Design Evaluation (Rau Hoskins).b) confirm approval to sell land on which Queen Elizabeth Square stands to Precinct

Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL) subject to successful commercialnegotiations, the outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stoppingand rezoning of the land) and the inclusion of design quality requirements for theDowntown Shopping Centre (DSC) block in the terms of sale.

c) agree that the proceeds from the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square be reinvested inthe delivery of at least two of three identified potential alternative public spaces alongthe downtown waterfront i.e.:i) new/improved space west of Queens Wharf on the waters edge at th e foot of

Lower Albert Street

ii) improved space around the historic ferry building and at the base of QueensWharf

iii) new/improved space east of Queens Wharf in the Admiralty Steps area.d) note the initial draft design requirements for the Downtown Shopping Centre block

that will form part of the terms of sale, summarised as follows:i) support the vision for the area as expressed in the Downtown Framework and

the general design principles of the Downtown Shopping Centre Block Designand Development Brief (October 2013).

ii) creation of an at-grade, publicly accessible (24hrs/7days), open with weatherprotection, east-west pedestrian laneway connection between Lower QueenStreet and Lower Albert Street through the block.

iii) creation of a north-south pedestrian link through the block referencing the oldLittle Queen Street.

iv) creation of an active built edge to Lower Albert Street, Lower Queen Street,Quay Street and Custom Street that is human in scale and reinforces andenhances the positive street qualities of the surrounding area in terms of scale,massing, rhythm, articulation and transparency of facade.

v) best practice environmental design including a minimum New Zealand GreenBuilding Council rating of 5 Stars or a recognised equivalent standard for thecommercial tower.

vi) application of Te Aranga Mori Design principles in the design process andfinal design.

vii) support of the Auckland Urban Design Panel to the final design.e) note that, additional to the waterfront public spaces identified in point c), a new civic

pedestrianised space is to be delivered on Lower Queen Street in front of the ChiefPost Office (Britomart Transport Centre) as part of the City Rail Link early works'package. The proposed civic space will be delivered to a standard that is coherentwith the wider area and/or recen t public realm upgrades in the area as per the CityRail Link Notice of Requirement conditions.

f) note that the design of alternative public spaces identified in b) will form part of QuayStreet upgrade project design package scheduled to commence November 2014.

g) agree that staff report back to the Auckland Development Committee with an update

on the alternative public spaces design development as part of the Quay Streetupgrade project.


42/159

Item 1

2



Comments11. The Auckland Development Committee on 15 May 2014 resolved the following as part of the

report entitled Downtown Shopping Centre Block Redevelopment Future of QueenElizabeth Square. (Resolution number AUC/2014/64)

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve in principle the disposal of land on which Queen Elizabeth Square stands as part of the wider redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block subject tothe outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning ofthe land).

b) agree to the sale only if the proceeds from the potential disposal of Queen ElizabethSquare are reinvested in new or enhanced public civic space/s that:

i. is of at least the same quantum and higher quality to the existing space

ii. is located either within or in reasonable proximity to the Downtown ShoppingCentre block

iii. is capable of being delivered broadly at the same time as the permanent lossof the existing space

c) direct staff to work with the Waitemata Local Board and Iwi on evaluating offsite public civic space options with the findings to be considered by the Parks, Recreationand Sports Committee prior to being presented back to the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee for approval in August.

d) agree the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square being considered as part of the preparationof a Development Agreement between Auckland Transport, Auckland CouncilProperty Limited and Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited on the basis that:

i. its final inclusion remains subject to statutory public processes (road stoppingand rezoning of the land).

ii. The Development Agreement include conditions relating to the built formoutcomes sought by council.

e) agree that any disposal of Queen Elizabeth Square is done so in the context of theoverall masterplan and its vision for the city centre and achieving world classoutcomes befitting this unique space in the context of Auckland.

12. Queen Elizabeth Square (QE Square) as defined for the purpose of this report is containedby Lower Queen Street to the east, HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) to the north, DowntownShopping Centre (DSC) to the west and Zurich House (21 Queen Street) to the south. Itmeasures approximately 2000 square metres (sq m) in size. The DSC block in which QESquare sits is bounded by Lower Albert Street, Quay Street, Custom Street West and Lower

Queen Street. With the exception of QE Square all of the land in the block in owned byPrecinct Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL).

13. In June 2014 Reset Urban Design, led by Garth Falconer, was commissioned to undertake,in response to point c) of the 15 May resolution, an evaluation study of the public spaceoptions in the downtown area referred to as Downtown Public Space Option Evaluation(DPSOE). In addition to this commission Rau Hoskins, Design Tribe, was engaged to workwith Iwi in assessing options against Te Aranga Mori design principles (see Mori ImpactStatement). Groups from across the Council family were involved in reviewing this workincluding Waterfront Auckland, the City Centre Integration team, Auckland Council PropertyLtd and Auckland Transport. The Waitemata Local Board also participated in and reviewedthe evaluation work.

14. Council also commissioned the leading international practice in public life studies and publicrealm design, Gehl Architects, to undertake a further independent review of Queen ElizabethSquare (see Attachment B Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation).


43/159

I t e m

1 2



15. The Downtown Framework, the topic of a separate report to this meeting of the AucklandDevelopment Committee (Ref CP2014/20135) provides the strategic context to theseevaluation studies and the recommendations in this report.

Downtown Public Space Option Evaluation Study (DPSOE)16. The DPSOE was undertaken to:

Identify and understand the needs for public space in the downtown area.Understand the historical development of this area from a public space perspective.Develop a set of assessment criteria to assess public open space in the downtown area.

Assess the qualities of both the existing and an enhanced (realistic best case) QESquare.Identify alternative spaces that could be invested in with the proceeds from a sale of QESquare.

Public Space Requirements in the Downtown Area17. The DPSOE found that there was a lack of good quality public open spaces in the downtown

area. There was a lack of diversity and hierarchy, with very little variation in use. The spaces

were found to be fragmented with poor connectivity, doing little to support the needs of Aucklanders and visitors.

18. A recreational needs survey 1 for the city centre was undertaken in 2009 which concludedthat there was a need for:

More open spacePlaygrounds

Additional facilitiesSafer accessPlaces to gather and enjoy eventsStronger connections to water

19. The study also highlighted that by 2030 there will be a doubling of workers in the city centreto 128,000 and residents will increase by 50% to 42,000. The City Centre Masterplan (July,2012) revised these figures to upwards of 140,000 workers and 45,000 residents by 2032.

20. Achieving new public space provision in the city centre and downtown in particular ischallenging given its built up nature with perhaps the exception of the waterfront. TheDPOSE therefore places an emphasis on the quality of existing and new spaces rather thanoverall quantity and contemplates the potential of repurposing city roads in a manneralready delivered through the City Centre Shared Space Programme.

History of public space in the downtown area21. The downtown area is reclaimed land. Before the reclaimation the foreshore was an

important area for mana whenua as a place to arrive and depart by waka and gathering fishand shellfish. The area was progressively reclaimed for commercial and port activity duringthe late 19 th Century. Queens Wharf was constructed at this time, and it and the waterfrontwere publicly accessible. In 1909, for safety and security reasons, the red fence wasconstructed which effectively constrained public access to all but those catching ferries.Consequently, the only public spaces were the streets and they became increasinglycongested with vehicles in the 20 th century.

22. QE Square was created on the western side of Lower Queen Street in 1973 following thedemolition of previously intact Victorian and Edwardian built fabric as part of the AucklandHarbour Board modernist redevelopment plans. It was designated as open space andtransferred to Auckland City Council in exchange for the closure of Little Queen Street.

1 Sport and Recreation in the City Centre Understanding Needs and Identifying Barriers and Gaps inProvision, Auckland City Council, November 2009


44/159

Item 1

2



23. For most of the 1970s QE Square functioned primarily as a transitional public space andforecourt entrance to the newly constructed DSC and Air New Zealand House (now HSBCTower) and Downtown House (now Zurich House). Its unattractive environmental conditionswere widely criticised as evidenced in the Ministry of Works and Development report,Walking Around Town (April 1977). This repor t concluded that the Square is transitionalspace, perhaps a forecourt to the buildings, but as a pleasant place for pedestrians to relax

in the city it is a failure citing the climatic challenges and lack of active frontage as theprimary causes. (see Attachment C Extract from Walking Around Town)24. Criticisms of the space during the1970s prompted full closure of Lower Queen Street as a

public square between DSC and the CPO building. The new expanded square featuredextensive public seating in areas defined by raised planters, trees and fountains, andbecame a popular and well-used public space, enjoying full exposure to the sun during themiddle of the day.

25. With the development of the Britomart Transport Centre in 2002 Lower Queen Streetbeca me a bus exchange and QE Square was returned back to its original 1970s state. Anew canopy was constructed on the western side of the street to shelter bus users andpedestrians moving from the city to the waterfront. During the early 2000s QE Square

represented one of the few public spaces in the downtown area, however the opening up ofQueens Wharf to the public in 2011 and the creation of new space within the Britomartprecinct including Takutai Square increased overall provision markedly.

Public space assessment criteria26. The DPSOE determined that the most relevant public space for the downtown area is both

civic and informal recreation. It went on to develop a set of assessment criteria from bestpractice open space design guidance contained in the Auckland Design Manual (ADM) foreach type of space. These were applied to QE Square (existing and enhanced) and aninitial seven off site public space options.

27. The evaluation criteria used for civic spaces was:

on busy routes and at significant siteslarge space for events, gathering and ceremoniescomfortable and safestrong identity and heritagecommunity facilitiescater of pedestriansactive edges and extended hours

28. The evaluation criteria used for informal recreation spaces was:

very accessiblemulti-functional from play to walking

good viewssheltered and sunnylocate near amenities especially watercater for range of users

Existing Queen Elizabeth Square evaluation29. In summary, the DPSOE study found that the negative site attributes of QE Square

outweighed the positive site attributes.

The positive attributes include:

It is next to a major pedestrian route adjacent to Lower Queen Street At approximately 2000 sq metres, it is a sizable spaceIt is opposite the CPO (Britomart Transport Centre) building


45/159

I t e m

1 2



The negative attributes include:

It does not support objectives of connectivity and permeability in relation to the publicopen space network in the downtown areaIt creates a gap in the building edge on the western side of Queen Street the maincity to harbour linkIt is subdivided from the adjacent space of Lower Queen Street and does little tosupport this spaceIt is a residual space that has become the forecourt to a private shopping malldevelopment with poor building edges it is not a destinationIts original reason for being is usurped; it has become a side show to the nearbywaterfront and does little to enhance the link with the waterfrontThere is minimal mana whenua or heritage valueIt has a poor environment being both windy and in shade for the majority of the dayIt doesnt meet the open space/recreation needs of residents, workers or visitors

30. The DPSOE study concludes that QE Square is a poor quality public open space that does

little to support public use and enjoyment in the downtown area.31. Gehl Architects came to a similar conclusion over QE Square following a visit on 13 June

2014. They applied their standard 12 quality criteria for public space to the site anddetermined that it performed poorly against four criteria, average on four and well on four.Mitigation measures to overcome the four criteria upon which it scored poorly i.e. i)protection against unpleasant sensory experiences; ii) opportunities to see; iii) opportunitiesfor play and exercise; and iv) opportunities to enjoy the positive aspects of climate were asfollows:

a. Redevelop the block to create an extroverted structure that integrates with the squareand initiate activation of the square through active frontages and active uses

b. Demolish HSBC tower [1 Queen Street] to allow solar access, to eliminate windproblems and create views and direct links to the waterfront

c. Reconfigure bus interchange /station entry to allow a seamless integration of QESquare and Queen Street.

32. Gehl Architects concluded that if other open space options exist within the area it would beworthwhile exploring how they could offer something that is more valuable and attractivethan the current QE Square . (See Attachment B - Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation)

33. These conclusions mirror those of the Waterfront Auckland Technical Advisory Group (TAG)and the QE Square evaluation in the Ministry of Works and Development report, Walking

Around Town (April 1977).

Enhanced Queen Elizabeth Square evaluation34. Notwithstanding the identified fundamental challenges of QE Square and the fact that from

mid 2016 the space will be closed to the public for a period of 2-3 years for CRL relatedworks, the DPSOE study explored two options for retaining and enhancing the space.

35. A courtyard option with a central feature surrounded by activated building edges wasconsidered alongside an option that partly/fully covered the existing square providing betterprotection from the microclimatic issues. In both options it was assumed that Lower QueenStreet would be enhanced albeit buses would still be retained in Lower Queen Street due touncertainty around achieving an outcome for the laneway that would satisfy the publictransport performance requirements i.e. 24hr/7 day a week public access. The canopyalong Lower Queen Street was also retained to provide the required level of weatherprotection.


46/159

Item 1

2



36. A further option considered the potential relationship between an enhanced QE Square anda pedestrianised Lower Queen Street as allowed for by the removal of buses. This wasbased on an assumption that the east-west laneway through the block required for the businterchange on Lower Albert Street could be achieved to the required qualities without thesale of QE Square i.e. through the consent process or through some commercialarrangement with PPNZL that excluded QE Square. This option retained the canopy as itwould still be required as weather protection along a major desire line.

37. The QE Square enhanced options performed better against the criteria than the existing,particularly the QE Square and Lower Queen Street option. They however still fell short ofalternative spaces, not least because the shading issue of HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) isnot addressed. The purchase and demolition cost of HSBC Tower is estimated to be inexcess of $100 million.

Alternative public space options evaluation38. The DPSOE and Gehl Architects evaluation recommend that a better proposition for public

space provision in the downtown area is to consider options that provide for an enhanceddowntown waterfront and Lower Queen Street experience.

39. From the initial seven DPSOE identified off site options four outperformed the others withone specifically satisfying the civic space need in the downtown area:

a. A new pedestrianised civic space, similar in size to the existing QE Square, in front ofthe CPO (Britomart Transport Centre) building on Lower Queen Street. The DPSOEconsidered the space to be a superior alternative civic space to the existing QESquare with improved access to the sun and glimpsed views to the harbour.Furthermore, it would have an improved relationship to the CPO building has a publicfunction and quality of architecture that is befitting as an edge to an important civicspace.

b. Subject to the relocation of current bus movements and associated infrastructure fromLower Queen Street to Lower Albert Street the pedestrianised civic space will bedelivered as part of the CRL early works package. The CRL Notice of Requirement(NoR) conditions require that the design and construction of reinstatedstreetscapes/station plazas should be coherent with the wider area and/or recentpublic realm upgrades in the area. Further work is required to determine the finaldesign and specification of the civic space including whether the existing underpassand associated lift, stairs and ramp are to be incorporated. Any additional costsassociated with the delivery of the proposed space beyond the scope of the NoRconditions would need to be considered in the context of the to be agreed wider citycentre Long Term Plan 2015-25 funding envelope.

40. Three spaces on the downtown waterfront have the potential to satisfy the DPSOE identified

need for recreational space in the downtown area:a. A new/improved space west of Queens Wharf at the foot of Lower Albert Street which

would build on the existing north facing qualities and views across the WaitemataHarbour. It would support and provide a vital interface between the Viaduct, PrincessWharf and redeveloped DSC.

b. An improved space around the historic ferry building and at the base of Queens Wharf,itself scheduled for a public space upgrade.

c. A new/improved space east of Queens Wharf in the Admiralty Steps area. The space,currently operational port under the control of Ports of Auckland, has been identified bymana whenua as an important space for ceremonial welcoming given its proximity tothe city centre and visual links to the Waitemata, Takarunga (Mt. Victoria) Maunga a

Uika (North Head), Rangitoto and the wider Hauraki Gulf. The ability for the public togain access the space is subject to the outcome of strategic studies described in theDowntown Framework.


47/159

I t e m

1 2



41. The DPSOE proposes that the three potential recreational public spaces be consideredtogether as part of a network to complement and reinforce the Quay Street upgrade.

42. The return from the sale of QE Square is expected to be sufficient to deliver at least two ofthe three identified waterfront spaces based on current cost estimates. It is proposed thatthe design and delivery of all three be further explored as part of the Quay Street upgradeproject, which is currently going through a Request for a Proposal process to appoint adesign team in October 2014.

43. The final implementation programme for the waterfront spaces will be determined by the QESquare consenting pathway, conclusion of the sale process and confirmation of sequencingwith the wider downtown programme including CRL early works package, the Quay Streetupgrade and other Long Term Plan 2015-25 identified potential projects such as the FerryBasin project. A further report recommending the spaces to be pursued will be presented tothe Auckland Development Committee once this design and costing work has beencompleted.

Design r equirements44. A series of design requirements relating to the redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping

Centre block are proposed for inclusion in the terms of sale for QE Square securingoutcomes that cannot necessarily delivered through regulatory processes. The initial draftproposed design requirements can be summarised as:

a. Support the vision for the area as expressed in the Downtown Framework and thegeneral design principles of the Downtown Shopping Centre Block Design andDevelopment Brief (October 2013).

b. Creation of an at-grade, publicly accessible (24hrs/7days), open with weatherprotection, east-west pedestrian laneway connection between Lower Queen Streetand Lower Albert Street through the block.

c. Creation of a north-south pedestrian link through the block referencing the old Little

Queen Street.d. Creation of an active built edge to Lower Albert Street, Lower Queen Street, Quay

Street and Custom Street that is human in scale and reinforces and enhances thepositive street qualities of the surrounding area in terms of scale, massing, rhythm,articulation and transparency of facade.

e. Best practice environmental design including a minimum New Zealand Green BuildingCouncil rating of 5 Stars or a recognised equivalent standard for the commercial tower.

f. Application of Te Aranga Mori Design principles in the design process and finaldesign.

g. Support of the Auckland Urban Design Panel to the final design.

Consideration

Local board views and implications45. The Waitemata Local Board has been involved in a series of workshops including a session

with the Auckland Development Committee on 30 July and 3 September 2014.

46. The Board support the general findings of the DPSOE and have expressed a particulardesire to see additional entirely new public space provided in the downtown area. On thisbasis, the Board have a stated preference for the Lower Queen Street civic space and the

Admiralty Steps waterfront space options but do expect that the other options are alsopursued. As a minimum they expect three of the four identified options to be delivered asoffset for the loss of QE Square.

47. The Board also believe that the new east-west laneway through the DCS block should beregarded as an important new addition to the downtown public space network.


48/159

Item 1

2



Mori impact statement 48. The downtown area is profoundly important to manu whenua being the place of arrival and

departure for waka, harvesting of shellfish beds and general trade. Furthermore QE Squarehas cultural value being the site of the basalt ro ck Te Ahi Kaa Roa sculpture (by NgtiWhtua, 2004). There is also a grove of kauri trees, within recessed gravel pit on thenorthern edge of QE Square which was installed 2003 as part of a general upgrade. Set

against this context, the evaluation team including Rau Hoskins worked with five Iwi groups(of the 13 invited) that expressed an interest in being involved - Ngti Whtua rkei, NgtiTamater , Ngti Poa , Te kitai Waiohua and Ngi Tai ki Tamaki to explore the culturallandscape value of QE Square and the alternative public space options. [Note. the Ngi Taiki Tamaki representative was not able to attend any of the meetings, but has been keptinformed of the details discussed].

49. At an initial series of meetings the identified public space options were tested against Te Aranga Mori design principles which have been adopted by council through the AucklandDesign Manual.

50. The assessment against Te Aranga principles can be summarised as follows:

Mana / Rangatiratanga : For a public space to have mana or status in the eyes of manawhenua it must be a place where manuhiri / visitors can be appropriately welcomed andgreeted and a place where mana whenua in turn can comfortably exercisemanaakitanga / holistic hospitality. Such a space must have the ability for clearthresholds to define an atea space which can become a zone of engagement andpwhiri / welcoming. The existing QE Square space lacks these critical qualities whilethe waterfront options, particularly the base of Queens Wharf and the Admiralty Stepshave the potential to provide high quality zones of engagement.

Whakapapa: While the existing QE Square has a certain level of significance to manawhenua insofar as it was once part of the foreshore acting as a launching place for wakaand a significant shellfish bed, it now has a comparatively low value because it is not anatural venue for engagement or ceremonial interaction. With the Admiralty Steps andbase of Queens Wharf possessing these critical features the opportunity exists for manawhenua to apply appropriate names to these areas to acknowledge their significanceand cement mana whenua re connections. Dedicated discussions are required withmana whenua regarding any potential relocation of Te Ahi Kaa Roa sculpture and Kaurigrove.

Tohu: To mana whenua, and Mori in general, high value outdoor spaces have strongphysical and visual connections to natural features and landmarks which define tribalterritories and narratives. As a largely enclosed public space QE Square lacksconnections to critical natural features and landmarks whereas the Admiralty Steps inparticular links str ongly to the Waitemat, Takarunga (Mt Victoria) Maunga a Uika(North Head) and beyond to Rangitoto and many other significant landmarks.

Mauri t : A new public space on the downtown waterfront and a renewed physicalconnection to the Waitemat allows f or a stronger mana whenua focus on environmentalquality in this area with a particular focus on water quality. As kaitiaki with a physicalbase at the downtown waterfront, mana whenua will be more readily able to support andencourage efforts to enhance water quality of the inner harbour.

Taiao: A new public space on the downtown waterfront offers significant opportunitiesfor mana whenua to be involved in naturalising both the harbour edge and wharf areaswith locally significant materials and plantings which will encourage native bird andmarine life and enhance the attractiveness of this public space for mana whenua,matawaka, tauiwi and manuhiri alike

Mahi Toi: The development of a new high profile public space offers the opportunity formana whenua creative engagement at all levels ensuring that appropriate historical andcontemporary cultural narratives can find creative expression within the physical realm.


49/159

I t e m

1 2



Ahi k : For mana whenua the true value of a new public space will only be realised ifthere is physical support for their regular presence within that space. A waka culturecentre and or a whare manaaki based in the Admiralty Basin with appropriate land andwater based facilities would enable mana whenua to exercise their kaitiaki andmanaakitanga responsibilities while provi ding a unique Mori and Pacific presence aspart of the maritime gateway to the city.

51. The five iwi groups will continue to be involved in the process of designing the alternativepublic spaces with the remaining eight iwi groups kept informed with an open invitation tobecome more closely involved.

Implementation52. The current negotiations with PPNZL regarding the CRL works in conjunction with the

redevelopment of the DSC address the impact of the rail tunnels on the land owned byPPNZL. It is planned to recognise in the commercial agreement with PPNZL the land that itloses for the tunnel volume taken by the CRL. It is proposed that PPNZLs ability toconstruct underground car parking would be retained by granting it a subterranean leaseunder part of QE Square. As this land currently has the status of road, this approval restswith the Board of Auckland Transport. This arrangement assists in minimising any financialpayment to PPNZL in regard to the tunnel land requirement.

53. Any construction under QE Square is independent of any decision to allow the developmentof the above ground area as that is considered in this report.

54. Confirmation of the approval to sell QE Square to PPNZL will trigger a number of internaland public processes involving Auckland Transport (AT), Auckland Property Limited (ACPL)and council.

55. Prior to ACPL being able to progress any agreed disposal of the QE Square land, planningand road stopping processes need to have been completed.

56. QE Square is likely to be closed to the public for 2-3 years from late 2016 to accommodateCRL construction works. The proposed CRL rail tunnels run under the QE Square and areplanned to be constructed as part of the arrangement with PPNZL to construct the tunnelsunder the adjoining DSC. If that agreement did not eventuate QE Square would still beclosed for adjacent CRL construction and would ultimately need to be excavated for thetunnel construction.

57. If QE Square is sold to PPNZL it will plan the development of the area as part of its largerdevelopment of the DSC. However, construction on the site can only proceed once thestatutory processes are completed. PPNZL is preparing to lodge a resource consent for theDSC redevelopment. This will not assume any inclusion of the QE Square. If council agreeto selling QE Square, PPNZL will deal with the consenting of development at a later stage.

58. The three identified waterfront public spaces will be advanced to preliminary design stagethrough the Quay Street upgrade project. The final implementation programme will bedetermined by the QE Square consenting process, conclusion of its sale and confirmation ofsequencing with the wider downtown programme as further described in the DowntownFramework.


50/159

Item 1

2




A Downtown Public Space Evaluation 53 B Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation 91 C Extract from Walking Around Town 99

Signatories Authors Tim Watts - Manager Built Environment Authorisers Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning ManagerRoger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


51/159


52/159


53/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




54/159

A

m

A

m




55/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




56/159

A

m

A

m




57/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




58/159

A

m

A

m




59/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




60/159

A

m

A

m




61/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




62/159

A

m

A

m




63/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




64/159

A

m

A

m




65/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




66/159

A

m

A

m




67/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




68/159

A

m

A

m




69/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




70/159

A

m

A

m




71/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




72/159

A

m

A

m




73/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




74/159

A

m

A

m




75/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




76/159

A

m

A

m




77/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




78/159

A

m

A

m




79/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




80/159

A

m

A

m




81/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




82/159

A

m

A

m




83/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




84/159

A

m

A

m




85/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




86/159

A

m

A

m




87/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




88/159

A

m

A

m




89/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2




90/159

A

m

A

m




91/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 2




92/159

AttachmentB

Item 1

2




93/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 2




94/159

AttachmentB

Item 1

2




95/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 2




96/159


97/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 2




98/159


99/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2




100/159

AttachmentC

Item 1

2




101/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2




102/159

AttachmentC

Item 1

2




103/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2




104/159

AttachmentC

Item 1

2




105/159

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



8/11/2019 Auckland Development

Auckland Development Committee - September Agenda 2014

Documents

Transcript of Auckland Development Committee - September Agenda 2014